Hi,
I am currently trying out Videostudio 9. I am making a video clip which is made up of lots of JPEG pictures. Whenever I fade between them using the crossfade transition and render the finished file, the picture jumps slightly and becomes pixelated for a split second immediately before and after the crossfade.
Also, when using the Pan and Zoom Video Filter on a still image, as the image pans, vertical lines of distortion appear on the picture as if you were looking at it through slightly distorting glass.
I assume that none of these problems are occurring due to the fact that I am only running the trial version are they?
What am I doing wrong?
Please help.
Mark Newman.
Videostudio 9 - Crossfades are unstable
Moderator: Ken Berry
-
Ken Berry
- Site Admin
- Posts: 22481
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:36 pm
- System_Drive: C
- 32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
- motherboard: Gigabyte B550M DS3H AC
- processor: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
- ram: 32 GB DDR4
- Video Card: AMD RX 6600 XT
- Hard_Drive_Capacity: 1 TB SSD + 2 TB HDD
- Monitor/Display Make & Model: Kogan 32" 4K 3840 x 2160
- Corel programs: VS2022; PSP2023; DRAW2021; Painter 2022
- Location: Levin, New Zealand
Well, first we have to know what you are doing right. What are your project properties for the slideshow? In particular which Field Order are you using? I would think Frame Based might be best for a slideshow... And finally, how big are your images which you used.
And no, your problem is not related to the fact that you have the trial version.
And no, your problem is not related to the fact that you have the trial version.
Ken Berry
-
MarkNewman
Hi,
I have tried Lower Field First and Upper Field First, but I haven't tried Frame Based yet. Will try it tonight.
What is this field order thing anyway?
The images are different sizes. Several of them are from a digital camera, so we are talking 1600 * 1200, others are much smaller, say 300 * 225. I thought that maybe that might be part of the problem, but the jump occurs also when I fade between 2 pictures of the same resolution.
Thanks for your help.
Mark
I have tried Lower Field First and Upper Field First, but I haven't tried Frame Based yet. Will try it tonight.
What is this field order thing anyway?
The images are different sizes. Several of them are from a digital camera, so we are talking 1600 * 1200, others are much smaller, say 300 * 225. I thought that maybe that might be part of the problem, but the jump occurs also when I fade between 2 pictures of the same resolution.
Thanks for your help.
Mark
-
Trevor Andrew
Hi Mark
The first part of your post regarding ‘Pulsating Pixels’ has been reported many times.
Most users don’t have any problems, but for those that do a solution as far as I know has not been found.
I noticed that at the start and end of the transition some pixels would pulsate once. Very Annoying.
Many solutions were banded about but non were 100%.
My problem just seemed to go away, I couldn’t say that I had done anything to cure the problem.
David Reece did a lot of tests and concluded that the type of Jpeg compressor may be at fault.
Do a search of this forum
Author -------David Reece—
Key word----pulsating—
This is one post
http://phpbb.ulead.com.tw/EN/viewtopic. ... =pulsating
David if you read this, did you ever find a solution.
As a workaround you could render your images to a video file without transitions.
Use the new video file and ‘split by scene’ then add transitions.
Unfortunately you would not be able to use ‘pan and zoom’
Sorry I cannot be more helpful.
Trevor
The first part of your post regarding ‘Pulsating Pixels’ has been reported many times.
Most users don’t have any problems, but for those that do a solution as far as I know has not been found.
I noticed that at the start and end of the transition some pixels would pulsate once. Very Annoying.
Many solutions were banded about but non were 100%.
My problem just seemed to go away, I couldn’t say that I had done anything to cure the problem.
David Reece did a lot of tests and concluded that the type of Jpeg compressor may be at fault.
Do a search of this forum
Author -------David Reece—
Key word----pulsating—
This is one post
http://phpbb.ulead.com.tw/EN/viewtopic. ... =pulsating
David if you read this, did you ever find a solution.
As a workaround you could render your images to a video file without transitions.
Use the new video file and ‘split by scene’ then add transitions.
Unfortunately you would not be able to use ‘pan and zoom’
Sorry I cannot be more helpful.
Trevor
-
MarkNewman
Yes indeed. In the preview Window everything is fine. It is only when I watch the finished DVD, I notice the problem.You're talking about the video as seen on a TV from a DVD right?
Not about the preview window?
Are you using Smart rendering? If yes try without.
It often loses track of transitions and pan/zoom re-edits.
Regarding your comment about SmartRender, doesn't that only apply to previewing the video not the fully rendered video? It says in the help file:
My problem occurs in the finished film, not the preview. However, for what it is worth, my playback mode is set to Instant Playback, so I assume that the SmartRender option is switched off.In High Quality Playback mode, VideoStudio uses SmartRender technology which renders only the changes you made such as transitions, titles and effects, and eliminates re-rendering the entire project. SmartRender saves time when generating previews.
Will play around though.
Thanks for all your comments. I will try out the different suggestions and post a note here if any of them succeed.
Regards,
Mark.
-
MarkNewman
OK. We have some progress.
The Crossfades are now nice and smooth, no more pixelating. The solution was to change the field order to Frame Based.
The remaining problem is the distorting effect on the Pan and Zoom. This is only very slight and only occurs (as far as I can tell) in the finished render, not the preview. I am panning and zooming into a still image 2048 * 1536 pixels.
Imagine looking at the picture through an uneven piece of glass and moving the glass sideways across the picture. Vertical ripples appear as you move the glass. This is what I am seeing.
Also, I have some flicker on a few of the pictures, especially pictures with small, sharp detail in them. This is only evident when I play the DVD on my TV, When I play it on my computer monitor the flickering doesn't occur.
Thanks for the help.
Mark.
The Crossfades are now nice and smooth, no more pixelating. The solution was to change the field order to Frame Based.
The remaining problem is the distorting effect on the Pan and Zoom. This is only very slight and only occurs (as far as I can tell) in the finished render, not the preview. I am panning and zooming into a still image 2048 * 1536 pixels.
Imagine looking at the picture through an uneven piece of glass and moving the glass sideways across the picture. Vertical ripples appear as you move the glass. This is what I am seeing.
Also, I have some flicker on a few of the pictures, especially pictures with small, sharp detail in them. This is only evident when I play the DVD on my TV, When I play it on my computer monitor the flickering doesn't occur.
Thanks for the help.
Mark.
I'm sorry to come back but I think your flickering is caused by switching to frame-based.
For TV (interlaced display system) you need to use field-based.
Otherwise lateral movements will wave and show what you describe as distorted glass effect. That is due to half of the picture being displayed happening after the next, going back in time. The faster the movement the more apparent.
If you have it also in field-based setting that could mean you did not use the same field order all along the chain, rendering -> burning.
And by the way yes smart renderer will affect output file and not only preview, IF you use quality playback, which you didn't.
For TV (interlaced display system) you need to use field-based.
Otherwise lateral movements will wave and show what you describe as distorted glass effect. That is due to half of the picture being displayed happening after the next, going back in time. The faster the movement the more apparent.
If you have it also in field-based setting that could mean you did not use the same field order all along the chain, rendering -> burning.
And by the way yes smart renderer will affect output file and not only preview, IF you use quality playback, which you didn't.
-
MarkNewman
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for your reply.
I have had, since the start, 3 seperate problems.
1. The pulsating pixles problem
2. The flickering effect
3. The Glass distortion effect on the Zoom and Pan video filter.
The solution to (1) was to use Frame-Based
Problems (2) and (3) have always occured no matter what I do to the Field order.
Can I use different Field orders on different scenes? e.g. use Frame Based for the still pictures and "Lower Field First" for the scenes where I use a Pan and Zoom?
The only thing I haven't tried yet is using the SmartRender option.
Will report on any progress.
Regards,
Mark.
Thanks for your reply.
I have had, since the start, 3 seperate problems.
1. The pulsating pixles problem
2. The flickering effect
3. The Glass distortion effect on the Zoom and Pan video filter.
The solution to (1) was to use Frame-Based
Problems (2) and (3) have always occured no matter what I do to the Field order.
Can I use different Field orders on different scenes? e.g. use Frame Based for the still pictures and "Lower Field First" for the scenes where I use a Pan and Zoom?
The only thing I haven't tried yet is using the SmartRender option.
Will report on any progress.
Regards,
Mark.
AFAIK the field/frame case is the easiest:
for TV you need field-based and the first field is determined by your capture device; in your case since they are picture you case choose, but the important thing is to respect the same order in VS while creating the MPEG file and while generating the DVD output (create disc step).
for progressive devices (mainly computers but also some plasma/LCD/projector devices) you need frame-based.
If you break that rule you are going to see artifacts. Don't even think of it.
Now even for pictures you cannot use TV frame-based; although the pictures do not move by themselves, transitions, titles, overlays and certainly pans etc are in fact starting small video sequences where field-order errors will show.
You have to conduct all your experiments field-based if TV is your target viewing device.
And lastly I think there's no point in using smart renderer to help. It can only bring in problems if you re-edit already placed zoom/pan and transitions. It will on the other hand not improve anything when used, only accelerate quality preview at the cost of the above.
for TV you need field-based and the first field is determined by your capture device; in your case since they are picture you case choose, but the important thing is to respect the same order in VS while creating the MPEG file and while generating the DVD output (create disc step).
for progressive devices (mainly computers but also some plasma/LCD/projector devices) you need frame-based.
If you break that rule you are going to see artifacts. Don't even think of it.
Now even for pictures you cannot use TV frame-based; although the pictures do not move by themselves, transitions, titles, overlays and certainly pans etc are in fact starting small video sequences where field-order errors will show.
You have to conduct all your experiments field-based if TV is your target viewing device.
And lastly I think there's no point in using smart renderer to help. It can only bring in problems if you re-edit already placed zoom/pan and transitions. It will on the other hand not improve anything when used, only accelerate quality preview at the cost of the above.
-
Trevor Andrew
Hi Mark
Reading your earlier posting you say ( The images are different sizes. Several of them are from a digital camera, so we are talking 1600 * 1200, others are much smaller, say 300 * 225.)
I would advise you not to use images smaller than the video frame size.
VS is not a photo editor and as such will not do a good job in resizing your 300 x 225 images.
As a test:-
I have just tried 10 images at 300 x 225 and each shows a lot of pulsation at the start and end of the transition.
I then used 720 x 541 images and again this showed some pulsation, but not as bad.
Finally I tried two more slide shows using 720 x 576 and 768 x 576 (the latter something to do with square pixels ???)
Both these tests were clear of pulsation pixels.
I can only suggest that you resize to 720 x 576 or 768 x 576.
I used raw images at 2832 x 2128, resizing them and maintaining proportions ended up as 768 x 576.
Do a test with a few of your worst images.
I have realised that when I create a slide show I always resize my images.
I have started adding a 15% black border to every image. This takes the place of the safe area when shown on a tv set. All the image can be seen, the border being lost around the edges as over-scan.
Hope this Helps
Trevor
Reading your earlier posting you say ( The images are different sizes. Several of them are from a digital camera, so we are talking 1600 * 1200, others are much smaller, say 300 * 225.)
I would advise you not to use images smaller than the video frame size.
VS is not a photo editor and as such will not do a good job in resizing your 300 x 225 images.
As a test:-
I have just tried 10 images at 300 x 225 and each shows a lot of pulsation at the start and end of the transition.
I then used 720 x 541 images and again this showed some pulsation, but not as bad.
Finally I tried two more slide shows using 720 x 576 and 768 x 576 (the latter something to do with square pixels ???)
Both these tests were clear of pulsation pixels.
I can only suggest that you resize to 720 x 576 or 768 x 576.
I used raw images at 2832 x 2128, resizing them and maintaining proportions ended up as 768 x 576.
Do a test with a few of your worst images.
I have realised that when I create a slide show I always resize my images.
I have started adding a 15% black border to every image. This takes the place of the safe area when shown on a tv set. All the image can be seen, the border being lost around the edges as over-scan.
Hope this Helps
Trevor
-
Trevor Andrew
Hi Daniel
I realise you can use the distort feature to resize your images but if you have a lot to do then its very time consuming.
There is no auto way to resize to keep within the safe area, (as far as I can see) it would be difficult to get every image exactly the same size doing it manually, and if you have a lot say 100 then…………..
I use Photoshop to batch convert all my images and create a black border, I think this border looks good during box/flying transitions. The batch convert also resizes my images to match the frame size.
All I can say is that when ever I use Pal frame size images I have no problems.(720 x 576) (768 x 576)
Using larger images with the same aspect ratio is not bad but still gives problems.
I do not think VS likes resizing images it is not an image editor.
I will do another test using 720 x 576 and distort feature.
Thanks
Trevor
I realise you can use the distort feature to resize your images but if you have a lot to do then its very time consuming.
There is no auto way to resize to keep within the safe area, (as far as I can see) it would be difficult to get every image exactly the same size doing it manually, and if you have a lot say 100 then…………..
I use Photoshop to batch convert all my images and create a black border, I think this border looks good during box/flying transitions. The batch convert also resizes my images to match the frame size.
All I can say is that when ever I use Pal frame size images I have no problems.(720 x 576) (768 x 576)
Using larger images with the same aspect ratio is not bad but still gives problems.
I do not think VS likes resizing images it is not an image editor.
I will do another test using 720 x 576 and distort feature.
Thanks
Trevor
I think you'll not win anything from distorting a 720/576 picture since you go from right size to something else...trevor andrew wrote:Using larger images with the same aspect ratio is not bad but still gives problems.
I do not think VS likes resizing images it is not an image editor.
I will do another test using 720 x 576 and distort feature.
My remark was specifically about your previous answer referring to smaller images; distort makes it easy to select "keep original size" and voilà, you just have to move the frame where you wish (or leave at center); no resizing, no blow up, faster rendering.
Luckily I'm one of those who use the cameras' large images without any side effects (PAL), and believe me, I'm not bothered with 100s of images, I'm counting them more by thousands, and I'm not afraid to resize, correct, enhance, pan, zoom and distort them each. It IS time consuming.
So since I can't contribute more, I guess I'd better leave this subject now...
-
Trevor Andrew
Hi Daniel
I think you can and have contributed, its good to bounce ideas backwards and forwards.
Any-how this is strange.
I have just made a slide show using 2832 x 2128 images and cross fade all transitions pulsate.
A second show was made using the same images but I applied the distort feature to downsize the images within the safe area, this slide show viewed ok.
I just don’t get it, I’m going round in circles.
Trevor
I think you can and have contributed, its good to bounce ideas backwards and forwards.
Any-how this is strange.
I have just made a slide show using 2832 x 2128 images and cross fade all transitions pulsate.
A second show was made using the same images but I applied the distort feature to downsize the images within the safe area, this slide show viewed ok.
I just don’t get it, I’m going round in circles.
Trevor